500 words a day on whatever I want

Islamophobia

Islamophobia (1000s- ) is a fear or hatred of Muslims, followers of the Prophet Muhammad. It sees “Muslims” as naturally violent and savage, as a threat. In the West it is common during periods of history when it is at war in Muslim countries, like during the Crusades (1095-1291) and since the fall of the Soviet Union (1991- ).

It is sometimes applied to people who merely “look” Muslim, like Arab Christians, Greek Orthodox priests, Sikhs and Hindus.

Hating or fearing someone based on their actions is rational. People are right to fear al-Qaeda or Boko Haram, for example. They have killed thousands of defenceless people!

But hating or fearing someone based on their religion is bigotry or prejudice.

How Islamophobia works:

out-group: Sees Muslims as an out-group, a “them”, a Despised Other.

out-group homogeneity: Sees all Muslims as the same, a fourth of all the people in the world, from Senegal to Egypt to Turkey to Indonesia. As if they belong to a hive mind. Or: they are divided into Good Muslims and Bad Muslims. (If a story has a “good” Muslim, it is almost certainly Islamophobic.)

out-group derogation: Sees the worst of the Muslim world as what all Muslims are like, while it looks at the West in the best possible light. The bad qualities of the West are “failings”, those of the Muslim world are “features” that are due to religion. That is like blaming all the ills of the West on Christianity.

confirmation bias: A few bad apples – or twisted “facts” – are all it takes for “proof”.

Islamophobia is rooted in the heart, not the mind.

It follows the same pattern as White fear of Blacks in the US using crime as an excuse.

That means it is hard to talk someone out of it. Facts can only confirm their belief, never weaken it.

What can help to weaken Islamophobia is knowing people who are Muslim. It can make Islamophobia seem idiotic – because it is. Bad experiences with Muslims, though, can strengthen it.

Stuff to know:

According to the FBI, only 6% of terrorist attacks on US soil between 1980 and 2005 were carried out by Muslims. Even Jews carried out more (7%).

The US is shockingly ill-informed about the Muslim world, the scene of most of its foreign policy disasters since the Vietnam War. It is not just voters who lack a good, general knowledge, so do scholars and policymakers!

The US pushed Islamism (political Islam) from 1958 to 1991 as a way to keep communists and socialists from coming to power.

The US supported Saudi Arabia in spreading Wahhabism, its extreme form of Islam, as a way to fight communism.

The US supported and trained jihadists to fight communism in Afghanistan. Thus Osama bin Laden.

The US supports many of the governments in Muslim countries that oppose “Western values”.

The scenes of torture carried out by the US at Abu Ghraib helped to turn a pizza deliveryman into one of the Charlie Hebdo killers.

Share this post:

Like this:

234 Responses

“The US supported Saudi Arabia in spreading Wahhabism, its extreme form of Islam, as a way to fight communism.”

Wahhabism is also what fuels IS (they’re wahhabists, but even more extreme than Saudi Arabia). Much of their early funding came from rich Saudis. So, yeah, the US (and the west) helped create the horror that is IS.

Abagond, will you delve into the humor of Charlie Hebdo? They depicted the Justice Minister, Mrs. Taubira, a Black woman, as a monkey on their front page for October 30, 2013. I’m not saying they got what they deserved, but they weren’t the secular saints the avalanche of propaganda their deaths elicited wants to make them.

Thanks for the post, Abagond. As a British-born Iranian I am often on the receiving end of Islamophobia because I fit into a lot of ignorant people’s idea of what a Muslim looks like, despite not being a Muslim or even an Arab – if that’s not an indicator of the sheer prevalence of Islamophobia I don’t know what is! Thanks for helping combat Islamophobia with another one of your informative posts. I discovered your blog fairly recently and it has taught me an awful lot I didn’t already know about black history, as well as the history of racism and world history as a whole.

They depicted the Justice Minister, Mrs. Taubira, a Black woman, as a monkey on their front page for October 30, 2013.

“Only then after all that might we appreciate that the cartoon depicting France’s black Justice minister Christiane Taubira as a monkey was actually lampooning the blatant racism of a far right wing paper’s front cover and thus exposing the thinly veiled racism of that publication (note that Taubira sued the paper Charlie Hebdo were parodying, and not Charlie Hebdo). By depicting the world through the lens of the extreme right’s gaze they were attacking the racists, not the race.”

The scenes of torture carried out by the US at Abu Ghraib helped to turn a pizza deliveryman into one of the Charlie Hebdo killers.

If that;s the truly the case then it seems the attack was incredibly misdirected. France was a heavy critic of the US invasion of Iraq. Multiple cartoons appeared in Charlie Hebdo mocking the US invasion of Iraq:

I happen to catch a small portion of Meet The Press on Sunday morning, and one of the panelist Reza Aslan an Iranian-American writer and scholar of Religious Studies. Made this statement on yesterday in reference to why the moderate Muslims aren’t renouncing these violent attacks and he added that “Anyone who says that doesn’t own “Google.” That gave me pause. Then he went on to say “That said, I do think we need to do a better job of providing a counter narrative.” I guess i need to do a “Google” search like Mr. Aslan suggests.

Another blogger that i follow brought up an interesting point if the Charlie Hebdo magazine cartoonist had been black they would have received all kinds of vilification, but them being white they got a pass. Being a Christian i still don’t condone mocking someone’s faith. I don’t condone the violence done by the extremist. Having free speech might need to have some boundaries. These are just my personal thoughts and opinions.

@George: I am thinking of the Nigerians as well that was equally as horrific as the incident in Paris. Same evil and radical extremist different part of the world. That needs to be discussed as well. And why the mainstream media barely makes mention of this. I was on my Google+ time line and saw the charred bodies of babies, women and piles of other dead villagers. The poster who posted had her post disabled by Google.

OK, so in light of recent attacks by radical Muslim groups in France claiming a number of lives and designed to silence those who would be critical of Islam or its prophet (curses be upon him) you could:

A. Consider that, given immigration and demographic trends, France may become majority Muslim in the not too distant future (perhaps a century or so in the future), and think about what governments in majority Muslim countries are like.. and the treatment of minorities of other religions in Muslim controlled countries.. and think.. is this really what Europeans should want for Europe?

OR

B. Talk about evil non-Muslims who must be “islamaphobes” like Charles Martel, who, instead of surrendering Europe to Muslim invaders, drove them out.

I think we should choose the second option because white people are evil and Western civilization stinks. Abagond would never want to live in a majority Muslim country, but logic or worries of hypocrisy never stopped the Narrative (TM) before! (Also, A is too big picture. We need to only focus on specific individual rights and can safely ignore the bigger picture.) Rock on!

Fact: most Muslims are not physical jihadists and do not carry out what Allah and his prophet commanded them to do. Surah 9:29!
When you study the Qur’an and the Hadith and you begin to appreciate what sets Islam apart from other religions it’s easy to understand why they (physical Jihadists) do what they do. For those who fight a physical Jihad, Allah has reserved the highest place in Janna for them which is paradise. The Islamic concept of paradise entails a constant supply of houris and men have unlimited sexual powers. So this is the reward for the wagers of physical Jihad.
Many believe this is why some young men are willing to do anything to get there. I’m serious.
Read a very interesting book by an American scholar and medical doctor, Nabeel Qureshi: Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus. Qureshi converted to Christianity after 4 years of intensive comparisons between Islam and Christianity after he discovered much in Islam which ran counter to the dictates of his conscience. He believes the main difference between Islam and the West is that in the West we espouse the philosophy of the paradigm of innocence/guilt whereas in the Islamic world it is honor/shame. It is a truly illuminating read from someone who really knows his subject.

I think one of the points saying that in the article saying whites fear black people because of violence is not substantiated or entirely true,whites fear black people for being black after all being black does’t equate to being violent as every black person is not violent and white people are aware of this,most white people use the violence as an excuse.
There are millions of whites that are violent and they do not go around hating each other systematically other for that reason,white people tend to see just color when dealing with black people on every level,in times of old where black people were suppressed and had no control,the most docile slaves were still hated,there is big issue by non-blacks ,where the color black itself is deemed very ugly,where as brown is seen as OK.,have seen the most beautiful dark skin women get rejected by a white guy in favor of a more ‘acceptable’ lighter skinned chick who was not half as decent looking.there is something detestable about the color dark brown as opposed to brown,it does seem scary to some, not just from whites and going way back in many history,in as many different cultures.
It also seems to be more acceptable by most if a man is dark,which makes him appear more masculine as opposed to dark skinned women who many see them having this masculine trait,now regarding Islam..that’s another story as a lot of people,of all different races associate violence to that religion.

In the quite recent past a CIA operative in Pakistan thought that two locals were following him. So he killed them. The local police found a list of “Al Queda” contacts on him. US pressure ensured no prosecution. Islamophobia, like “Islamic terrorism” helps keep wheels turning.

At least in Germany and Austria it’s a crime to deny that the Holocaust happened. But it’s very unlikely to go to prison for that, normally you will be fined. I don’t know the situation in France and I can’t imagine that in the UK.

@ Abagond

“Hating or fearing someone based on their actions is rational. People are right to fear al-Qaeda or Boko Haram, for example. They have killed thousands of defenceless people!

But hating or fearing someone based on their religion is bigotry or prejudice.”

The problem is that there is no clear dichotomy between violent extremists and all the rest. There is a significant group of muslims who support at least certain oppressive transformations of society according to (in their opinion) rules of Islam, but who don’t actualy participate in violence. These people I fear a lot more than terrorists.

2. The US is shockingly ill-informed about the Muslim world, the scene of most of its foreign policy disasters since the Vietnam War. It is not just voters who lack a good, general knowledge, so do scholars and policymakers!

I can tell!! I thought it was a joke when I saw it originally but – they asked Nigel Farage, Leader of UKIP, a right wing party that has been making news in the UK (most of it showing them in ridiculous light) for some time now

@thwack
Catholicism has its rituals I agree. Catholics have committed terrorist acts in my country (the UK).
However there is nothing in the Christian Gospels/ NT which commands a catholic to act in a violent manner to other people. Jesus, the example of which a Catholic must follow never committed one act of violence nor did he command his followers to do so. In fact in his sermon on the mount he told people that they must love not only their friends but their enemies also Matthew 5:44; so with that said there is no comparison to the Qur’an in which so many of the later revelations (from Medina) which abrogate the earlier peaceful revelations command the people to wage Jihad as a means of spreading Islam. I have spent a long time recently looking into these matters, and I have come to the conclusion that everyone needs to study the Islamic texts and the Bible with an open mind before drawing conclusions. Humans are not perfect and will err along the way. That’s human nature; but what happens when humans are commanded to act in violence? I think we are seeing the fruits of that all over the world.

Here’s an interesting documentary I came by recently that should provide some background.

A little something from the blurb underneath:

“There is such dissatisfaction, such humiliation, such resentment at the failure to fully penetrate French society”, explains Prof Dominique Moisi. “The reality is a land of great inequality.” In the slums of Marseilles, children play among the rubbish. Unemployment, poverty and systematic discrimination is driving young Muslims into the arms of extremists.

Is Jesus the only voice in the bible? People refer to him in any Christian faith as if he is, but they are only speaking of New testament. Why are people afraid to address old testament? Is there something comparable to Qur’an?

Kiwi
All I know is that like the US, France has a bigger problem with Muslims than it does with Jews. In both countries, Jews are basically seen as white people whereas Muslims are not. While I met French people who were openly bigoted towards Muslims, I never met anyone who had a problem with Jews.
—————————————————————————————–

Could that be due to Jewish control of media and school curriculum; and their positive presentation of Jews?

With the help of white people, Jews kicked the Palestinians out of Palestine in order to form the Jewish state of Israel; but when the Palestinians fought back they were called “crazed Arab terrorists” on the Jewish controlled media where you get all your nooz.

Perhaps you should talk to some Palestinians?

The Jews put the Palestinians on “reservations” just like white people in the U.S did to the Native Americans.

@sharinalr
Hello and thank you for your response.
My answer would be not really but I haven’t studied it in depth. The OT does contain passages where God asks for the destruction of the Caananites but this is following 400 years of not obeying his commandments. In any case the Qur’an upholds the God of Abraham, so Muslims are not free to criticize him at all, as they profess the same lord, albeit calling him Allah which is taken from the Hebrew word Elohim. The circular logic of Islam on the one hand upholds the Injil (Gospels) but then refutes them, saying that they were corrupted and that Isa (Jesus) did not die on the cross because Allah only made it look like he did. However there is so much evidence that he did die on the cross from many accounts at the time from those such as the Jewish historian Josephus.
The main reason that I chose to believe the Christian and historical account of the death of Christ is because that is the most likely to have occurred when taking the historical method and minimal facts hypothesis. Those who proclaim it were writing based off eye witness accounts at the time in the area. Muhammad lived 600 years after the death of Jesus, in Arabia and was illiterate so how would he have been able to critically analyse the texts of the Gospels.
Do your research and go with what your heart tells you.

You will be surprised to know that I have studied much in the last few weeks as this subject has been a hot topic. With that being said God does more than simply asks for the destruction of the Caananites in old Testament. He asks for killings in many cases for simply not obeying his commandments. He condones such killings. From my understanding because of Jesus’s sacrifice then the punishments of old were not necessary and as such we do not follow, but be advised that is Mormon logic.

While I have yet to go completely through islamic text, I have yet to find anything that states Muslims are to wage Jihad as a means of spreading Islam. If you know of that text do you mind sharing it. I have found many interpretation of the text though.

“Do your research and go with what your heart tells you.”—I prefer to go with what the evidence tells me.

“In addition, if you are charged with “holocaust denial”, your lawyer can be charged with the same crime for defending you.”

Absolutly not true.

@ Kiwi

On the topic of Jews in France and Germany (and probably the rest of Western Europe). I agree with you if we’re speaking about the political mainstream, that is defintily more anti-muslim than antisemitic. But you also have to take into account the anti-semitic far-left and far-right. They don’t have a lot of political influence, but threaten the Jewish community constantly.

@Sharinalr
Thank you for your response. Yes there is violence in the old testament I am not going to deny that. I’m no scholar but I do think that the Bible must be read in context and of course the same applies to the Qur’an. A Sunni Muslim (I’m not sure on Shi’ites) MUST also follow the Hadith and the Sunnah to be a faithful Muslim. The Hadith explains and contextualises the Qur’an and makes sense of it as it is not written in a linear fashion like the Bible.
You were asking me for verses…well Surah 9:29 is the most infamous passage in the Qur’an which is translated as —Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Of course there are many more. Perhaps check out former Atheist Professor David Woods site or read former Muslim Dr. Nabeel Qureshi’s book ‘Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus’.
Then check out Muslim Shabir Ally’s works or Zakir Naik’s and yes look at the evidence. Then it is up to you to follow your heart.
I wanted to find out about Islam and Christianity before I made my decision. I was an Athiest…then Agnostic and I looked into Buddhism too when I was searching for something which resonated.
My journey was a very long one but it I required convincing from people who were scientific and scholarly in their approach as well as spiritual.
I have met a Mormon and while that wasn’t a path I wish to take personally…I could tell he was a man of God in a very profound way. Personally I’ve only just started my walk in Christ but He in his power and glory has rejuvenated my soul.
I hope you will find the truth if you so seek it. Peace

I appreciate your response and from what I see this text is not saying wage a jihad to spread islam. It does seem to be saying fight those that do not believe as they believe. In what context is this passage? I say this because in reading the bible taking versus out of context can be damaging and I am sure it is the same here.

This commonly happens and people interpret it as meaning something it does not. I am not being a hard azz, but looking at it in a realistic sense. I have met people who drive by study mormonism the same as other religions and then feel they have a grasp on it and do not. They quote from out D&C and Book of Mormon and are not sure of it. This can be the same will dealing with Muslim text. I will study the text more for context as I will the several others of similar nature.

“Qur’an 9:29 to Fight those who believe not in Allah nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam) etc.”

Your islamophobia is duly noted. I am not interested in a persons interpretation of what it means but the actually meaning as per Muslim understanding of it. The text you quoted stated to fight non-believers, but does not give me the full context of in what instance this is necessary or is to take place. Also the meaning of jihad varies and to take one that fits your narrative is…..take a guess?

The difference is that Mahometans all came here relatively recently. They are not French and don’t belong in France.
As for Germany:
“Türken raus! Türken raus! Alle Türken müssen raus!”
(Turks out! Turks out! All Turks must leave!)

“However there is nothing in the Christian Gospels/ NT which commands a catholic to act in a violent manner to other people.”

Of course not. Catholics didn’t exist in Jesus’ time.

But last I checked, the Catholic bible was composed of 73 books, including the Pentateuch, which you probably know has several violent commandments. And despite what New Testament Christians want to pretend, Jesus made it clear in Matthew 5:17 that the he came to “fulfull” the old laws and prophesies. Further in Matthew 10:34: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

Thank you for your response. I am completely suggesting that you examine all the evidence that is available to you. Do it critically, take your time and look at the eminent scholars from all sides. If you’re calling me an Islamophobe then that is correct in a sense because Islam does perturb me. I once considered becoming a Muslim and I looked into it as I knew that I believed in God. What I found shocked me. However, I am not against Muslims at all as I can never personally condemn anyone. I have met people who are Muslim and they were kind and decent. As I said originally most Muslims never engage in physical jihad. Thank goodness for that! Yes most Muslims lead respectable hard working lives. I, after deep reflection just do not personally like what is said in the Qur’an, Hadith or the Sunnah, which lays down the Sharia Law.
What I guess I’m saying to you is I was a hard nosed skeptical Atheist so yes, I needed evidence. Once I had become convicted in Christ he did the rest.
Also check out Dr. Caroline Leaf if you ever have the time. She’s a cognitive neuroscientist by profession and she has a very good argument for the Christian God, from a scientific perspective. Yes it has to be head before heart for many people, especially Atheists. Peace

Thank you!!!! While I have to give Rosina credit for acknowledging the killings in the bible, I have to admit that is a common argument by people. The result becomes they want to “teach you the way and life of Jesus” this is why I beat around the bush on telling them I am actually christian. I know the teachings of Jesus, but I also know the teachings of God and he was no where near as forgiving. Not to mention Jesus came in the name of his father to do his work.

As to the recent immigrants, of all faiths, French politicians don’t want to restrict immigration because its white French population is declining and highly dependent on the welfare state, and immigrants have been fueling France’s fledgling economy for decades.

Since Sarkozy is a second-generation immigrant who Catholic, is he somehow more French than the millions of second-generation immigrants who are Muslims?

I want to further go on to say that each religion a person finds is based solely on what they need in life. All religions can be blinding to some extent and to be fully honest, I have found that atheist and people not attached to religions are better about to critique it in a manner it should be. Although I am Christian I want to get to a point of critiquing without being biased to said religion. As a Mormon I can be biased towards my own religion, but I am learning that when I critique the bigger problem seems to be the people and not the religion.

As I stated above, people tend to interpret things a certain way. Even among Mormon’s we each have an interpretation of a certain text. For example A friend and I (along with fellow women) saw eve as a manipulative woman. We saw her need to eat the forbidden fruit as a bit selfish in nature. She spoke up on this in Sunday school class. The looks she got for her response was amazing as many believe Eve was simply wise and knew what she needed to do. This resulted in a bit of a heated discussion.

“I think it was worse, way worse than Paris, around 10 times as bad. & yet no one is talking about it.”

What has been Nigeria’s response to the attack? I couldn’t find any statement from the President. I read one article about about a general defending the military. Are there any good resources about the response in Nigeria?

Muhammad claimed that the Qur’an is the holy uncreated word of Allah. Every word which he spoke was written down through scribes and is perfect. All Muslims believe that. Many Christians do believe in scriptural inerrancy, which is mostly about the word of God and such. Some scholars read the Bible in a way which takes into account hyperbole to a degree. I think when Jesus speaks of the sword he absolutely means a spiritual sword. He told Simon Peter to put down his sword when he rose to defend him at his arrest. Indeed if there wasn’t a better time to use a sword for any man it would have been at Jesus’ arrest yet he told Simon Peter ‘put thy sword into thy sheath the cup which my father has given me shall I not drink it?’ John 18:11
Jesus went willingly to his death as it was his and his father’s divine plan. He was willing to take a very painful excruciating death. That says something for a person who committed no sin (according to Muslims too, Jesus and Mary are the only sinless people to have walked the earth) performed miracles, rose the dead and was resurrected on the third day. Perhaps compare the life of Muhammad, who is not sinless, according to his own testimony in the Islamic texts where he speaks of having to pray many times to Allah for forgiveness.
I believe the that the gentleman who this blog is written by is a Catholic Christian? Perhaps he could chime in and offer his opinions. I would be very interested. Thank you @Abagond in advance for your very interesting blog. You write on some emotive topics but always in a engaging fashion.

Muhammad claimed that the Qur’an is the holy uncreated word of Allah. Every word which he spoke was written down through scribes and is perfect. All Muslims believe that. Many Christians do believe in scriptural inerrancy, which is mostly about the word of God and such. Some scholars read the Bible in a way which takes into account hyperbole to a degree. I think when Jesus speaks of the sword he absolutely means a spiritual sword. He told Simon Peter to put down his sword when he rose to defend him at his arrest. Indeed if there wasn’t a better time to use a sword for any man it would have been at Jesus’ arrest yet he told Simon Peter ‘put thy sword into thy sheath the cup which my father has given me shall I not drink it?’ John 18:11
Jesus went willingly to his death as it was his and his father’s divine plan. He was willing to take a very painful excruciating death. That says something for a person who committed no sin (according to Muslims too, Jesus and Mary are the only sinless people to have walked the earth) performed miracles, rose the dead and was resurrected on the third day. Perhaps compare the life of Muhammad, who is not sinless, according to his own testimony in the Islamic texts where he speaks of having to pray many times to Allah for forgiveness.

The bible has many contradictory versus. Same as the Qur’an. For every violent verse you can always find one stating peace or reasoning for violent justification. This is why I, like others, believe in a double standard being in place. Joseph Smith transcribed the book of Mormon (big story behind this) yet no one questions this to the degree of the Qur’an.

Most Christians believe the gospel is perfect, but the people are not. They believe that the bible was transcribed also. King James version is actually believed by the some in the Mormon community to actual not be complete. The reason being is because King James added and removed things based on the times and his will. The NIV bible is believe to be an interpretation of scriptures and some have disputed the use of it for scripture study.

The bible has many prophets and I don’t think any of them were sinless.

“I think when Jesus speaks of the sword he absolutely means a spiritual sword.”

That’s your interpretation. In my interpretation, bringing the sword is the opposite of “I came NOT TO SEND PEACE” means sword. The opposite of peace is disorder, conflict, war, etc.

“He told Simon Peter to put down his sword when he rose to defend him at his arrest. ”

LOL. You mean after Simon Peter cut off Malchus’ ear?

Don’t forget that Jesus also said in Luke 22:36 “he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

“That says something for a person who committed no sin”

He certainly orchestrated theft, which is a sin: Matthew 21:2: “Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me”

“Jesus and Mary are the only sinless people to have walked the earth) performed miracles, rose the dead and was resurrected on the third day”

The fact that we have no records of their entire lives means you have no way of knowing that they lived without “sin.”

I just gave an example of one of several sins Jesus committed in the bible. Mary also committed sin. She did sleep around with the holy ghost. Imagine how Joseph must’ve felt.

“Sylvia Stoltz is a German Lawyer who was jailed for defending a person charged with “holocaust denial”; here she is in her own words:”

Just so the other commenters won’t swallow this nonsense. Stolz wasn’t convicted for defending a holocaust denier but for denying the holocaust herself (among other nice things, like threatening lay judges with the death penalty for treason if they don’t acquit the defendant).

“They consider a few dead Jews at Charlie Hebdo a small price to pay for the dilution of white political power.”

Glad to see that in an ever-changing world at least Antisemitism stays the same.

Rubbish. She used that as a defence strategy, as any defence lawyer would do. She actually said: said “Numerous lawyers have been sentenced with fines because they have attempted to submit evidence in defence of their clients”

Denying the existence of something, whether directly or by presenting evidence in defence of a client, is not akin to threatening a judge or committing treason. Laws against denying the existence of something are nothing but forced propaganda and blatant offences against free speech.

If you want to exercise your guilt about what your fuhrer did decades ago, why not carve out some land in Germany for a Jewish homeland instead of jailing people for expressing their views or presenting evidence in defence of clients.

“Mahometanism is not European, it does not belong in Europe” This is stupid, Bertrand Du Guesclin France’s foremost knight during the Hundred years war with England claimed that his ancestors were Africans from Algeria or Nigeria according to some who settled in France when the Moors tried to conquer the place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_du_Guesclin

At the end of the day I’m not an apologist or a philosopher. Some of the argumentation here makes me curious and it seems like some people just seem to play Devil’s advocate. If you are an Atheist it isn’t possible to defend Islam by attacking Christianity. This is because Muslims believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus and it is written in the Qur’an that Jesus is sinless. The problem is for Islam is philosophically they have no explanation as to why Allah chose the Virgin birth for Jesus likewise why Allah chose to take him to heaven rather than die a shameful death (an argument Muslims use to refute the crucifixion). Yet Muhammad was left to die a painful death after being poisoned by a Jewish widow after he’d murdered her husband and family.

Check your history. Al-Samh ibn Malik took Septemania and established a capital at Narbonne which was Muslim til 759.

The Umayyads controlled Fraxinet (Djabal al-Qilâl) from 889-973

Ottomans (muslims) controlled Toulon in the 1500s and the Toulon Cathedral operated as a mosque.

Expelled muslims immigrated from Spain to France after 1609

Great mosque of Paris built in 1922

There’s nothing new about Islam in France.

@”The Charlie Hebdo attackers were 0% French”

No the Kouachi bros. were born in France, which makes them 100% French. Plus their mother was born in Algeria, which was at the time a French colony, which makes her 100% French as well. Using your standards, they are more French than Sarko.

@”They have their countries, let Christians keep ours.”

Christianity did not start in Europe and France isn’t a Christian country. Polls show most French people are not religious at all.

@sharinalr thank you for an interesting, cordial and thoughtful discussion. I see you are Mormon. Even though it isn’t the path I have chosen for myself it was a Mormon man who led me to God so I respect your faith. He had a rare beauty in his soul of the kind which transcends mere religion. I personally think that Jesus acknowledges all who ackowledge him in spiritual way. Peace

“If you are an Atheist it isn’t possible to defend Islam by attacking Christianity. ”

Personally, I am trying to defend Islam. Far from it. I don’t even know the qur-an enough to defend it. Just exposing the double standard that exists with islamophobes.

I do, however, know the Christian bible very well, and if you think for a second that the bible (either testament) doesn’t condone violence you’re either a hypocrite or intellectually dishonest or very unfamiliar with the book on which you base your faith.

“No it doesn’t. If I had been born in the Congo, as opposed to America, I would still be White, not Black. If I had been born in China, I would not be 100% Chinese.”
Religion and/or race doesn’t determine whether somebody is French or not. They were French nationals born in France.

“They have their countries, let Christians keep ours.”
You realise we’re talking about France, one of the most aggressively secular countries in the world? Calling France a Christian country is pretty amusing.

America is an Octoroon country, in that the country’s natural state is about 87.5% White and 12.5% Black.

Jim Crow was wrong. Whites and Blacks should have mixed into one people, Octoroons. Virtually all Americans should have 1 black great-grandparent and 7 white ones. This new group what have many European (British, German, Irish, Italian, Polish, Swedish, French) and many African (mostly from West Africa, the Congo, and Angola). It would look neither European, nor African. It would be a complete and unique and wonderful fusion. The language would be the same as General American English, and the music would be like all modern styles of American music. Jazz, Rock, Pop, RnB, these all represent the wonderful fusion of African-American and Euro-American culture.

And I’m not saying no one else should be allowed in, just that other groups should be no more than 2% of the country.

What should have happened in 1965 was a cutting of of all immigration that was not 1. White European. 2. New World Black. 3. Native Anglophone and Christian

By 2200 almost everyone will be fairly evenly mixed and within a couple percent either way of: 84% European; 11% Sub-Saharan African; 2% Middle Eastern, North African and South Asian; 2% East Asian, Pacific Islander and Aboriginal; and 1% Native American. This population would not look White, Black, or Asian. It would look like something entirely new. It would be beautiful. It would be a perfect America.

This is going to sound really racist, but a lot of white ppl come off as irrational and paranoid. I used to get upset when I’d hear people say things like, “whites folks be crazy.” However, the older i get the more i see that white folks really do be crazy. Smh.. especially when they get into the whole “the (Muslims, asians, blacks, Mexicans, gays, jews) are gonna take over diatribe.

As we can see from Bobby M’s comments, this is all about numbers and white majority. It’s back to an fear of being overtaken by nonwhites. Here’s a good example of Welsing’s theory in action. He’s managed to equate his islamophobia to his fear of diminishing white population in America. But at least he’s showing his true colours (no pun intended).

Booby M referred to what “should have been done” in 1965. What Bobby M should have meant was that the Immigration Act of 1917and the Immigration Act of 1924 (and the prior Exclusion Acts) should not have been repealed, meaning that he thinks they should have let it continue past 1965.

That was hardly a “natural state” of the country. The 88% white 10% black segregated America of the 1950s was created by design, an end product of genocide, slavery, ethnic cleansing and immigration exclusion.

That is why the US was so lily-white in the 1950s. Some think of that as the “natural” state of the country, but it was the creation of a set of racist policies that began with the Chinese Exclusion Act, policies that were not overturned till 1965.

In addition, if you are charged with “holocaust denial”, your lawyer can be charged with the same crime for defending you. So Germany and Austria are no different than Saudi Arabia in their use of the monopoly of state violence to defend that which they classify as sacred.

No, from your wikipedia link it is clear she wasn’t arrest for defending a Holocaust denier.. she was arrested for being a Holocaust denier herself.
“During that trial she called the holocaust “the biggest lie in world history”

In many European countries one can be arrested and/or sued for racist hate speech, slurs against muslims, and even speech condemning homosexuality. So the threat of arrest or censorship is certainly not limited to Holocaust denial. Personally even though I had relatives murdered by the National Socialists, I do not think people (as with Noam Chomsky) should be arrested for Holocaust denial but perhaps a requirement that a rebuttal should be offered in each of their publications.

So what is your take on that mayor of Rotterdam? If issuing slurs against Muslims can be a criminal offense in certain European countries, and Holocaust Denial is also a crime, then does it question if the rule of law is being fairly applied by selectively prosecuting one as a crime and look the other way for the other ones?

We could certainly construct a framework around Freedom of Speech, ie,

– Ban those inciting hate, violence, etc. However, I don’t know about those inciting criminal activity as civil disobedience, by definition, is illegal.

He’d probably have my vote if I were a Dutch citizen. I am glad he came out and said what he did. It certainly doesn’t sound as if he is condemning Islam, as he has affirmed that he is Muslim himself, he is condemning members of the Muslim community who advocate a restriction of speech such as Anjem Choudary.

If issuing slurs against Muslims can be a criminal offense in certain European countries, and Holocaust Denial is also a crime, then does it question if the rule of law is being fairly applied by selectively prosecuting one as a crime and look the other way for the other ones?

Well France does seem to go after both people who are Holocaust deniers and those who smear Islam in about the same measure:

Note, that per wikipedia Charlie Hebdo had been brought up on charges of abusing members of a religion but the court decided that they were mocking fundamentalists and not the muslim religion itself:

“In 2007 the Grand Mosque of Paris began criminal proceedings against the chief-editor of Charlie Hebdo, Philipe Val, for publicly abusing a group on the ground of their religion. The lawsuit was limited to three specific cartoons, including one depicting Muhammad carrying a bomb in his turban. In March 2007 le tribunal de Paris acquitted Val, finding that it was fundamentalists, rather than Muslims, who were being ridiculed in the cartoons.”

It’s pretty clear that Charlie Hebdo did not limit it’s critique’s to Islam:

According to this website:
“Around the time of the 2011 controversy over its Muhammed issue, the magazine’s editor noted that the publication had been sued 13 times by Catholic organizations but only once by a Muslim one.”

Okkkayyyy…. to put this in perspective.. this is the Michael Hoffman who stated that indentured white servants had it much worse in the US than black slaves.

Some of the titles in one of the publications by the men arrested Simon Sheppard, mentioned in the link by Michael Hoffmann: “Make N*gg*rs History” and “Dumb N*ggers Gloating Jews”

From a Guardian article:
Referring to another article by Whittle, the prosecutor added: “He returned to what appears to be a favourite theme: the notion that black people are not as equal as whites. They are sex-crazed, bloodthirsty savages.”

The amalgamation of Black and White people or Whites and non-Whites will NOT end racism. In fact, it will or probably has enhanced racism, because many people who are mixed with White (no offense to them at all) are desperately trying to be “fully White.” College admission forms to Ivy League schools don’t lie, acceptance to the “White Club” doesn’t lie. I can go on and on. Unfortunately, many Americans of African, Asian andNative American descent who are mixed with White are a living proof.

Uncle Milton
To John:
This is what the Revisionist Hoffman has to say..
Okkkayyyy…. to put this in perspective..
———————————————————————————————–
UM thanks for the update. I didn’t go beyond what Hoffman said concerning the Paris incident. Maybe I should have done so before posting….

Uncle Milton
To Thwack:
No, from your wikipedia link it is clear she wasn’t arrest for defending a Holocaust denier.. she was arrested for being a Holocaust denier herself.
“During that trial she called the holocaust “the biggest lie in world history”
—————————————————————————————–

We will never find out if the holloco$t is the biggest lie in world history as long as it is illegal to represent people who possess and/or distribute EVIDENCE it is.

To sum up; the Jews have made it illegal to possess EVIDENCE the holocost is a hoax.

They have made evidence the holocost is a hoax the equivalent of child porn; its illegal to possess either.

No matter how crappy black schools are, no matter how sorry our curriculum… every black child is taught exactly how many Jews died in the holoco$t; after we learn about “the six million” nobody cares if we learn anything else.

Michael Cooper,The amalgamation of Black and White people or Whites and non-Whites will NOT end racism. In fact, it will or probably has enhanced racism, because many people who are mixed with White (no offense to them at all) are desperately trying to be “fully White.”

Unfortunately, many Americans of African, Asian and Native American descent who are mixed with White are a living proof.

Read Abagonds post on genetic testing and Black Americans. Notice that there are specific percentages of Black ancestry for all the individuals mention. This shows that DNA varies between different ethnic groups

“French ethnicity” is a constantly moving target, like MOST ethnicities are. You have the the Norman conquest of England, and then the 100 years War with Henry IV, V, VI, and of course there were the Moors in southern an Eastern France. Plenty of colonies where ‘mixing’ took place, all around the world, etc.

Its not like there is some kind of common DNA strand that unites most of French people. Even back in the early region of Gaul it encompassed Luxembourg, and Belgium and was divided into at least 3 smaller ethnic groups.

By “French,” Bobby M means a pale, non-Muslim person residing in France with a French-sounding name.

@Bobby M

Obivously whiteness is important to you but the fact is that the Kouachi brothers are French as they were born in France. Their mother was born in a French colony and therefore she was also French. That’s how colonialism works.

If they’re not French, you’re not American.

“When I say ‘French Blood’ I mean someone who has ethnically French DNA.”

Glad you brought that up. Genetic studies suggest about 60% of French people have R1b. So are the pale French people with names like Sophie and Jacques who are not R1b, somehow not French?

And using your logic, the many Cameroonians, Russians, British, etc. who are R1b must be French.

The source of it is that Muslims considers the slur implying that they follow Mohammed as a deity, like Jesus. Muslims are VERY Monotheistic, and any hint of polytheism is anathema to them. Yep, it is archaich, but you know a whole lot of other racist words that are archaich. How many in this modern time would use archaich racist terms unless they are racist?

In short, calling Muslims “Mohammedans” and the like is an insult because it implies they are polytheists, and is a relic of Western Christian imperialism.

I know it because I have read a lot, and I would NEVER EVER allow the use of the slur “Mohammedan” on a blog I ran. Don’t you have access to Google? This was pretty much settled 50 years ago, and anybody who still wants to use Mohammedan or Mahometan is 100% islamophobe. Look through the comments and see who it is that insists on using “Mahometan”.

If French politicians wanted to “close the valve” they could have done so decades ago. And Algerian Muslims have been migrating to France for over 100 years. It’s nothing new.

As I earlier stated, the struggling French economy, its massive welfare state, and its declining white population is dependent on immigration. Same with UK, Germany and elsewhere in W. Europe. And despite the massive influx of immigrants through the years, France’s GDP growth is still close to 0%. So imagine what it’d be without the immigrants?

Sarkozy said it best “France needs immigrants” and the UN estimates that France needs 1.7 million immigrants just to maintain the economy.

Correction: By “French,” Bobby M means a pale, non-Muslim person born in France. Like former President Sarkozy, despite his Hungarian last name. But the Kouachi brothers, who were born in France are not French because they are Muslims and not pale enough.

@George
for France
1. Invasions by Mahometan immigrants
2. Eurozone crisis
3. The rise of China and India
4. Overspending on welfare
5. Political instability
6. The arrival of the Mahometans and their immigration into France
7. The rise of atheism and secularism and the loss of traditional values
8. Shrinking of French military

for America
1. Invasions by Mexican immigrants
2. Obama Hussein financial crisis
3. The rise of China and India
4. Overspending on welfare
5. Political instability
6. The arrival of the Mexicans and their immigration into America
7. The rise of atheism and secularism and the loss of traditional values
8. Obama Hussein shrinking US military

@Abagond
Very good analysis, …as a Muslim I thankyou for your accuracy!.

@General
Naishee is correct to point out that today the term Mohemmedan is not polite at worst and incorrect at best. The reason that Muslims prefer the self-identifying term “Muslim” is because it means “one who submits” (to God/God’s law) and in Quranic terms, this is not a label for a group of people, rather it is a spiritual state (the lowest of 3 spiritual states, the others being Momin and Mohsin). The Quran addresses itself to the “Muttaqeen” (One who is God-aware/loves God) as a book of Guidance.

I see in the comments section that there are opinions and questions about Islam…..?….perhaps I may be of help?

This myth that declining birth rates need to offset by immigration is a load of poo too. Japan has had a declining birth rate for decades & they manage to sustain their nation quite well.

I am still waiting for the “Take Japan, for instance” broken record post, but before it gets posted, …

No, Japan has basically been in perennial decline for the past 20 years. Their post WWII baby boom was shorter than America’s, around 1946-1954. That yielded a demographic dividend in the 1970s-80s when increasing numbers of young workers entered the workforce. They hit their boom / bust in the late 80s and have never fully recovered.

They have experimented bringing in foreign workers, including, eg, Japanese Brazilians, but they are now even abandoning that. Immigration is an answer to the decreasing labour force, but It seems that they prefer steady economic decline over having a multiracial, multiethnic labour force. No wonder they invest so much into robotics. That will only help ease the decline, but they will never fully recover.

Agree that suggesting that immigration is the only answer is not accurate, but Japan has not managed to solve their crisis either. It is critical as the baby boomers have been retiring. The average age in Japan is 45-46 and still increasing. Several years ago, the Philippines refused to allow large numbers of Japanese to retire there without allowing Filipinos to move to Japan to work.

What will happen when the average surpasses 50 with 40% of the population retired and the population shrinks by 25% (within one generation)? You call that sustaining a nation?

“First, the rise of Christianity is the cause for the collapse of civilization, but then the decline of Christianity is also the cause for collapse. Contradiction?”

The whole discussion is a bit futile, because it’s very difficult to define “decline” at all. To speak of a “dicline of Rome” is very questionable and normally historians don’t do it anymore. The “decline of the West” is just conservative philisophical figure, not a historic reality (unless one means by decline the loss of the colonial empires).

So is it better to import a more fecund foreign population that will ultimately replace you for potential short-term economic gain?

It’s also worth noting that the U.S. is becoming more stratified than ever. Importing cheap labor doesn’t expand the middle class (you could at least argue that “brain drain” immigrants do). It makes the rich richer and creates a larger group of poor people. It’s a solution for the 1 percent.

Also, even if you believe importing cheap labor is necessary, they don’t have to be given citizenship. Japan and Korea import laborers from SE Asia, but no one labors under the misapprehension that such people or their offspring will one day become Japanese or Korean nationally/ethnically.

Certainly, these populations (and Europeans) need to figure out how to increase their birthrates to a sustainable level. In some sense, importing labor just puts off dealing with the underlying problem.

Oh dear, who thinks like that? Sounds like late 19th century Yellow Peril fears of turning into a mongrel race.

Importing cheap labor doesn’t expand the middle class

That has been the method in the USA since the Civil War. And most of that cheap labour did expand the middle class in the 20th century. Or does that apply only to European cheap immigrant labour?

you could at least argue that “brain drain” immigrants do

but I wouldn’t. How does that create upward mobility for the working class?

even if you believe importing cheap labor is necessary, they don’t have to be given citizenship.

that is what the USA did from 1882-1965. Is the idea that we should go back to that?
Besides, the USA has jus soli, meaning their kids are native born USA citizens. Is the argument that we should repeal the 14th amendment?

importing labor just puts off dealing with the underlying problem

not so much if that labour population is fecund. That is how the USA did it since the 19th century.

The loss of the colonial empires was one of the greatest tragedies ever. Colonial empires were good for these reasons:
1. The saved the souls of heathen peoples
2. They introduced culture and civilization
3. They introduced advanced technology and infrastructure

The west is declining for these reasons:
1. The influx of fecund non-westerners into western nations
2. The rise of non-western nations such as China and India
3. The rise of secularism and atheism

First of all, it is the nature of empires to fall because they are man made and therefore subject to the corruption inherent in man.

Compound interest, or usury is what destroys most empires (from the inside); it is the beast which eats its rider. Usury is the reason nations need immigrants (or slaves, or war…); the exponential function of compound interest requires an ever increasing number of fresh “victims” for the ever increasing appetite of the beast (lest it eat its rider, which it will in the end)

This knowledge is not new. It is the reason The Church and the Abrahamic faiths in general considered usury to be a mortal sin.

The church considered usury “sterile intercourse” and this is its connection to sodomy.

Another BS of the establishment to destroy the black civil rights movement. Lords of the victimhood, Muslims complain that they are being profiled at the airport or shopping malls, while their co-religionists are slaughtering innocent Christian children in Africa, Asia, and even in Europe. Can anyone name us a single contribution of Muslims to humanity?

“Japan has had a declining birth rate for decades & they manage to sustain their nation quite well. ”

Japan also is in recession and has labour shortages. But Japan is no France. Japan is much more capitalistic and France much more socialist.

“This myth that declining birth rates need to offset by immigration is a load of poo too. ”

I don’t necessarily disagree, but European politicians have for many years welcomed immigrants to solve their economic problems. And it has worked. The best performing economy in the EU is UK, which has one of the fastest growing populations due to immigration.

Blame the European politicians who have long supported open door policies.

@Bobby M

“We should replace the 14th amendment with a law that says “You are only a US citizen if your grandfather’s grandfather’s grandfather owned land in the USA”.”

Yes! That would send back most of the descendants of European immigrants who have come over the last 100-150 years. But that doesn’t go far enough. Let’s send them all back.

“Colonial empires were good for these reasons:
1. The saved the souls of heathen peoples”

No, they enslaved people, raped and killed. How is that saving people’s souls?

“2. They introduced culture and civilization”

They actually stole culture, much of which they adopted as their own, and stole cultural symbols, many of which can be found in Western museums. And there’s nothing civilised about stealing land, destroying property, raping and killing. It’s savagery.

“3. They introduced advanced technology and infrastructure”

LOL. The only advanced technology European colonists introduced was a better way to kill, the gun, because they were savages. European colonists were not otherwise more technologically advanced than the people they subjugated.

None of us can walk into a bank and get a loan secured by the labor of our unborn grand children, great grand children, great, great grandchildren…

But the U.S government can; and thats what they do and have been doing for decades.

As long as you allow your governments to borrow money based on such fictions; you have no standing to complain about governments borrowing money based on real persons, even if they are immigrants; at least the immigrants are real, and not conceptual abstractions.

There is nothing new under the sun. The exponential function of compound interest (usury) always ends in tears (and shooting)

The sodomite takes something natural (intercourse) and makes it unnatural; while the usurer takes something unnatural (exponential growth) and makes it natural.

This is why Dante wrote in The Divine Comedy that bankers and sodomites occupied the same levels of hell.

The contributions you brought is debunked. Either Arab Muslims stole it from India, Persia, Egypt and Ethiopia (including their demonic faith) or Christian and Jewish Dhimmis did that for them. Imagine, in 100 years they would say that tallest building in the world, Burj Khalifa, is the result of Islamic civilization, while it was made and managed by non-Muslims. If I were you, I would sit at home and keep quite, in this shameful time for Muslims.

Bobby M wrote: “France for the French! Any economic benefits of allowing Mahometans into Europe are greatly outweighed by the social disadvantages and loss of an ethnically pure nation state.”
Bullshit. The French are as ‘ethnically pure’ as any modern nation, say the USA, Spain,Italy or Britain. Corsicans, Alsatians, Bretons and Basques are peoples with their own languages who either joined France or were forcibly incorporated into it. One of the reasons for the Académie française was to make sure these ‘foreigners’ knew what ‘French’ was. Your argument is based on rejecting ‘Mahometans’ as not white enough for your taste and nothing else.

the greatest & most sustainable economies in the entire world have declining birth rates. the worst economies in the world have high birthrates.
————————————————————————————-
Yes, but they are related by a power relationship (arrangement). Every additional birth of a poor person represents a future “draw” on the wealth and means of production rich people already own.

People are money and money is debt. Remove the poor people and you remove the basis for the value of rich peoples wealth

these “greatest & most sustainable economies” are all based on the exponential function of compound interest (usury) a mathematical abstraction that even a worldwide Nigerian birth rate can’t keep up with.

According to an old legend, vizier Sissa Ben Dahir presented an Indian King Sharim with a beautiful, hand-made chessboard. The king asked what he would like in return for his gift and the courtier surprised the king by asking for one grain of rice on the first square, two grains on the second, four grains on the third etc. The king readily agreed and asked for the rice to be brought. All went well at first, but the requirement for 2 n − 1 grains on the nth square demanded over a million grains on the 21st square, more than a million million (aka trillion) on the 41st and there simply was not enough rice in the whole world for the final squares.

“The contributions you brought is debunked.”—I will wait patiently on you to bring in that source that shows who debunked them, but in the meantime we can actually say most if not all contributions were likely stolen from someone and claimed it as their own. As such it still is not a sound argument that refutes the contributions of Muslims.

“If I were you, I would sit at home and keep quite, in this shameful time for Muslims”—If I were you I would not be quick to assume as to avoid making a fool of yourself. I am not a Muslim dear and if I was I doubt I would feel some shame.

In the meantime I think I will provide more Muslim contributions as you need more. 🙂

I actually lived in Alsace and it’s thoroughly French. While some of the older residents speak Alsatian as well as French, almost everyone speaks French and considers themselves French, and barely anyone speaks German or considers themselves German.

Corse is also thoroughly French. Not only do nearly all residents speak French and few Italian, almost a third were born on the French mainland.

“We need to redraw borders in Europe on ethnic lines and then kick all the Mussulmen out”

There are countries in Europe that have a majority Islamic population: Albania, Bosnia, and Kosovo, and countries where Islam has historically been a major religion: Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Russia, Turkey (the European part).

Neither Islam nor Christianity started in Europe, but both have been there continuously for over 1000 years. If Islam is not Europe. So the whole notion that Christianity is more European than Islam is rubbish.

I decided to do some research of my own into the debunked contributions and I came up with a plethora of interesting information.

First off a contribution does not limited itself to inventions. A person can contribute by doing something as simple as providing improvements to going as big as inventing. For example I made a monetary contribution to red cross. It does not mean I invented money and gave it to red cross, but I gave it to them.

Secondly a great deal of the contributions on the source I provided are contributions in the sense that they were brought to them by Muslims. Would Those of the middle ages know it otherwise? Maybe. To Individuals of the middle ages this knowledge was given to them by Muslims.

Thirdly I found a few inventions, because it was only fair to look at the disputed inventions, were indeed created by born Muslims who converted to Christianity. Of the others in question no one really knows where they came from but speculated that they were from certain areas as India and so forth. That only applies to those that lack documentation. Of those with further documentation there is no dispute that Muslims added in improvement. Soap for example is one thing that was not invented by Muslims, but was improved by them.

I provided both sources that show inventions as well as the one that debunks for fair reading.

What you describe is similar to how loan sharks prey on economically disadvantaged communities, only at an international scale. Rich “developed” countries like those in the West literally feed off the productivity of poor “undeveloped” countries like those in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. In short, it amounts to white people drinking nonwhite people’s blood.
———————————————————————————————–

Only now the beast is knocking on white peoples doors.

Remember back in 99 when those white youths protested and rioted at the IMF/World Bank/WTO meeting in Seattle?

“Islamophobia (1000s- ) is a fear or hatred of Muslims, followers of the Prophet Muhammad. It sees Muslims as naturally violent and savage, a threat to the West. It is common during periods of history when the West is at war in Muslim countries, like during the Crusades (1095-1291) and since the fall of the Soviet Union (1991- ).”

You write as if it is only the West that fear Islam. What about India? West Africa? Sudan? Ethiopia? Fear of Islam is not only an occurance in the Western world despite what stands in that text and what many in the US seems to think.. Countless nonwestern civilisations has a fear of Islam going back a millenia. I can recommend reading more about it and the reasons it is so.

For me, the first and biggest reason Islamophobia exists is because of the legacy of Jihad and violence towards non muslims. Which has been ongoing (and in numerous occasitions completely one-sided towards the nonmuslims) since the founding of the religion.

It is that simple. What angers me and many others today is the obvious passive/hidden support or indiffrence many “moderate” or “secular” muslims have for IS and other fundamentalists.

“Oh dear, who thinks like that? Sounds like late 19th century Yellow Peril fears of turning into a mongrel race.”

“Fecund” is not used much currently in English, but Koreans and Japanese think like this. Obviously, many Europeans are having second thoughts about wholesale replacement of the current populations, as well.

“That has been the method in the USA since the Civil War. And most of that cheap labour did expand the middle class in the 20th century. Or does that apply only to European cheap immigrant labour?”

Those immigrants blended in with the Europeans already existing in the U.S. That doesn’t happen with, e.g., illegal immigrant Mexicans. If you look at Mexico, it is still very stratified based on color. (Yes, IQ and other heritable factors also come into play).

“but I wouldn’t. How does that create upward mobility for the working class?”

Generally, they don’t. They drive down wages for skilled workers. On the other hand, at least those “brain drain” folks will be part of the middle class, pay taxes, etc. Their kids will tend to be productive members of society.

“that is what the USA did from 1882-1965. Is the idea that we should go back to that?
Besides, the USA has jus soli, meaning their kids are native born USA citizens. Is the argument that we should repeal the 14th amendment?”

Yes and yes.

“not so much if that labour population is fecund. That is how the USA did it since the 19th century.”

As noted above, the whites blended in with, and did not “replace” the native populations. In Japan and Korea, there is no desire to at some point have their countries become extensions of the Philippines (whereas, 19th century U.S. was happy to be an extension of greater Europe, ethnically).

If and when the Japanese or Koreans use ray guns to slaughter 30 million in California so that they can take over their land, maybe people should fight back.

@Kiwi,

Yes, in the 19th century, all of those groups in the USA were foreigners of different ethnicities. I see no problem in the ability of people of Korean, Chinese, Filipino descent to become Japanese. Tens of thousands already have.

The Indians had and have the right to fight back if they choose to (now that would pretty much mean annhilation).

As to a topic you raised above, Asians seem to have a lot more diversity, in general, as measured by average IQ, physical appearance, etc., than white people. East Asians could blend in pretty well together, I guess, if they wanted to.

I am not advocating killing all recent immigrants, but we at least have the right to try to enforce our existing immigration laws and to deport those who have entered the country illegally. We also have the right to determine whom we allow to become citizens in the future.

Right now, anyone in the world with money can effectively buy U.S. citizenship for his kids by just getting a travel visa for his wife when she’s pregnant. Pretty crazy stuff. On the other hand, I don’t really blame people for taking advantage of a foolish government policy that benefits their kids.

In my city the Muslim community is having a symposium and many people are opposed to it. It should be interesting how this all turns out, The police have been asked to keep the peace. This is an example of Islamaphobia people are very afraid. I see how fear can breed ignorance.

Knowledge—From an Islamic perspective…all knowledge belongs to God and is God-given. Not just revealed knowledge…but also scientific, technological, philosophical…etc…Therefore, knowledge, whether it comes from Greece or India or elsewhere is for the benefit of all humanity. As such knowledge is not “theirs” or “ours”…it belongs to God.

The explosion of knowledge during the Islamic age was facilitated by the industrialization of paper production. (8th century Samarkand).

Tolerance and Peace—There has been a persistent narrative that Islam was spread by the sword and Muslims (including Prophet Muhammed) are brutal and violent. Islamic history has its share of wars (as does just about any human history)…but as a religion, Islam has principles of tolerance and peace for example—In 628 CE a peace treaty was agreed to between the Meccans and Medinians (Prophet Muhammed). The Meccans violated the treaty terms and after repeated warnings, the Medinians took an army to Mecca in 630 CE and the Meccans surrendered. At that point, the Prophet gave amnesty to the Meccans. The principles that freedom and justice are important values to defend against oppression and injustice, but such defense must be conducted under certain restraints…such as a speedy conclusion to war in order to attain peace….come from the Quran.
The Quran:- (one example—Surah 2 verses 190-193)
190.Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors.
191. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith.
192. But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
193. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.

This verse (190 and others like it) are often used by Islamophobes out of context and often partially….the actual verses point out restraints that facilitate peace.

Jihad—Another prevalent narrative is that jihad is “Holy war” and this notion has been included in the link to the post about Jihad. To posit that there is a word for “holy war” pre-supposes that there are instances when war is normal/not holy. In the Islamic context—ALL human actions have God as a witness, be those of making peace treaties, business contracts, marriages or any other mundane human task. If “holy” is understood as “for God” then ALL human actions are “holy”. The more correct understanding of Jihad would be “to strive for Justice”—and this striving occurs in all aspects of life/human actions…from our actions with regards to the “self” to relations with parents and spouses, to those with neighbors, the greater community, the nation/society, and with humanity.

This context of Justice is important to understanding the existence of today’s extremists and how they frame their narratives…..and it may be one reason that some extremists try so hard to get a harsh/revengeful reaction from the “West” because it plays out so well in this narrative of justice/injustice.
(Instead—if the West had treated some of the extremists as criminals (as it did with the Nazi at the Nuremburg trials)…the West would have neatly avoided the trap and instead turned the tables on the extremists narrative)

@ kiwi, and general
Islam has a 1400 year history as well as a global presence. It is also pluralistic in nature—that is, it allows for various cultural expressions as long as these do not go against the the fundamental principles of the Quran. So there has always been a diversity of viewpoints within Islam—though these have been within the framework of the fundamental principles.

My explanations have been to explain 2 points that were brought up in the previous comments 1) Muslims “stole” knowledge, 2) Islam was spread by the sword/Jihad.

As a Muslim, I also have a vested interest in stopping the propagation of the extremist narrative. In my opinion, Islam/Quran is the best antidote to counter it and that is my motivation to explain the nuances….

Islamic historical narrative has an almost opposite trajectory to the Western historical narrative—where the West posits a dark age for itself and an emergence into “Englightenment”—-the Islamic historical narrative begins with the “enlightenment”(civilization) to a decline (present day). This historical perception plays a part in a Muslims world-view. (The pre-Islamic period is understood as Jahiliya or “age of ignorance” symbolized by unrestrained warfare among the Arab tribes, as well inequality, injustice, and insecurity. But Islam brought restraints through Justice, Law and order, …and with it (law) also came peace and with peace came prosperity….there is an understanding that to be “civilized” is to have restraints. That is why you find that many Muslim scholars, while they condemn the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and support free-speech…it comes with a caveat—that with freedom of speech comes responsibility (restraints for the sake of civility))

Of course I mean that Americans considered themselves to be “European”, rather than Asian, African or South American. Yes, when you exclude most of the world out of hand, your arguments are going to be about different things (e.g., how many Southern/Eastern Europeans to let in). At that time, the Protestant/Catholic divide was very important. However, ultimately, those people (with the exception of Jews to some extent) pretty much blended in with the rest of the U.S. whites.

Anyway, let’s try to keep the discussion on Islam/Islamic immigrants. In Sweden, for example, Muslim immigrants account for 5 percent of the population but commit 77 percent of crime, according to The Washington Times, including a huge number of rapes of Swedish women.

Do you really think importing large amounts of people from the Muslim world, including tons of “refugees”, will end well for Europe? Even if 80% of Muslims are moderate, it’s impossible to know who the 20% of extremists will be, and they cause a ton of problems.

You also would never want to live in a majority Muslim country. They would stone you for your sexual orientation. But, it doesn’t stop you from grandstanding against “islamophobia”. The whole “phobia” thing is a slur against conservatives (it is only applied to conservatives and not liberals–no one ever calls them morality-phobic or religiophobes, even though they openly oppose basic morality and religion), but abagond won’t ban “islamophobia” the way he will ban Winston Churchill’s “hate speech” because conservatives aren’t people worth defending to him–they are therefore literally sub-human to him.

The west is declining for these reasons:
1. The influx of fecund non-westerners into western nations
2. The rise of non-western nations such as China and India
3. The rise of secularism and atheism
You forgot:
4. The wars fought to maintain empires that killed millions.

The murder of these innocent people was ignored by the Jewish media because they were Christian, not because they were black. If white people had massacred these thousands of black people in Africa it would have been all over the Jewish world media for the next hundred years. Jewish journalist Joel Stein details how Jews control the media in this LA Times article.

“I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.”

US politics is controlled by Jewish people. John Kerry really doesn’t have Irish ancestors. Consider that every US Presidential candidate has to take a trip to Israel to kiss a$$ and secure approval. The US is constrained to give Israel unconditional support at a huge cost in anger generated for Americans around the world. If white people controlled the US and ran it for their benefit they wouldn’t be looking at demographics which will eclipse them in decades to come.

The destabilization of countries in the Middle East, like Iraq, Libya, and Syria has cost the lives of many Christians. If Jews had been killed in equal numbers we would never hear the end of it.

Black people are collateral damage here in the war against white people and Christians.

@ george
I would recommend that verses of the Quran be read in context—that is the preceding and following verses to the one quoted. It is also helpful when the quoted verses are read in full rather than partially as this puts the verses in proper context.
……for example verse 9:29 that you quoted is both out of context and partial—the actual context (taking the preceding verse into account) is the year when Mecca surrendered and this verse goes on to advise that those who do not have the same beliefs (non-Muslims) should pay the jizya. The jizya tax exempts non-Muslims from fighting/war but guarantees them protection and it is also symbolic acceptance of state authority. (Muslims also had to pay taxes). This is to encourage peace between communities and the reason that this was put into place is because previously, some of the non-Muslim communities did treason.

going into all the other verses will make this long—but if anyone is interested I can do so….

“The restriction against Southern and Eastern European immigration was racial.”

Didn’t say there wasn’t an important racial angle, but religion was also important.

“All I know is that the US and (Western) Europe have a brighter future than countries like China, Korea, or Japan, which don’t import immigrants.”

We’ll see. Western whites don’t quite have as terrible demographics as Korea, Japan, etc., but if the U.S. turns into Mexico and Europe turns into the Middle East, even a lower population Korea or Japan will be a much better place to live (for people with lower incomes they probably already are).

“More likely, you would never want to live in your beloved United States of America from 50-100 years ago.”

100 years ago, it was possible to find decent women in the U.S. who weren’t skanking themselves out before marriage and wanted to be wives and mothers. Anyway, you’re looking towards the past. I am looking towards the future.

Kiwi, you’re just name calling again. You couldn’t dispute any of the basic facts I raised about the effects of Muslim immigration in Europe and illegal immigration from Mexico and Latin America in the U.S.

Hilarious. Read the last responses and see who lost their “calm” and who is continuing with the name-calling. I grew up in majority Latino areas. You use your personal experiences around people in your peer group (mostly high-achievers) as an excuse to ignore big-picture statistics. You should realize that’s ridiculous. Yes, you know very well that you’d get stoned for your orientation in most majority Muslim countries.

@George
I appreciate your interest and the opportunity to clear misunderstanding.

SB 1:24 is not a verse from the Quran. I would venture to guess that this may be a distortion of ahadith…but the structure is different. Ahadith have a chain of narration (isnad) that determines the degree of authenticity. There are false hadith so this is an area best left to scholars….however, there is a general understanding that because the Quran is primary, any that seem in contradiction to the Quran may be dubious.

The Quran repeats several times that there is no compulsion in religion—that if God, had willed people to be of one religion, this would have been easy for him and that the only duty of the Prophet is to deliver the message…..etc
examples are:—-
Surah 2: verse 256, 16:82, 6:107, 4:79-80, 11:28, 17:53-54, 21:107-109, 22:67, 88:21-22, 48: 28…..and others…..

a couple of examples of what the Quranic verses say…
16:82 But if they turn away from you, (O Prophet remember that) your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message (entrusted to you).

60:8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

@George
The study of ahadith is science (methodology) and has a critical outlook.
Contrary to the seriousness of the subject, Muslims today seem to fling about ahadith without concern. The internet has made it easy—but the context and reliability are missing…..

Ahadith have an isnad or chain of narration—such as— “I heard from person A that he heard from person B that the Prophet said XYZ,” often there is context such as—-“when the Prophet was sitting down to a feast at a party given by C”…. All of these have degrees of authentication—for example the person A and B (the transmitters) have a biography so that their integrity can be assessed. The event of the party need to have corroborating witnesses (others who were at the party and saw the Prophet attend ). The context and meaning of the words and their possible interpretations are assessed (such as…are they literal, metaphorical, circumstantial….etc….) The study of ahadith is best left to scholars. Because of the scholarly nature of this subject, it would be best to get answers to questions about the specifics of hadith directly from scholars…..

If you want to know more…Dr Jonathan Brown has video lectures on the net introducing the subject of ahadith, their compilation, their nature, and their interpretations…….

Unlike ahadith—the Quran is a personal message from God to the individual. As such the Quranic interpretation fall into 2 main areas—the direct, personal interpretation for private use and the General interpretation made under the framework of Sunna/hadith and history. Such interpretations are called Tafsir.
Tafsir also incorporates the personal outlook (or biases) of the scholar and that is why translations are not considered Quran but Tafsir.

“George,
i’ve been under the impression that in Islamic states there isn’t much of a presence when it comes to other world religions. in the West there is a bit of everything, everyone can practice freely without obstruction. i don’t believe that is the case under Islamic law. but please correct me if i am wrong.”

Linda says,

You are assuming that every country with a majority Muslim population is practicing strict Sharia Law.

The first thing you need to make clear is:

1. What COUNTRY are you referring to?
this alone dictates the way Islam is practiced–

2. is the country more “secular”?
like Lebanon and Turkey

3. which “denominations” or sects are you speaking about?
Suffi’s, Sunnis, Shia — orthodox like Wahhabism

because so far, you seem to lumping them all together.

“do Jehovah’s Witness practice Christianity the same exact way as Catholics or Pentecostals?”

No they don’t… the Quakers/Pilgrims/Puritans hauled a’s out of England for a reason.

and they were even more “intolerant” towards “non-believers” than the tyrants in England that they were running away from.

“Despite widespread sectarian violence during their country’s 1975-1990 civil war, today Lebanese Muslims and Christians generally have positive attitudes toward one another. Fully 86% of Muslims have a favorable opinion of Christians, by far the highest rating of Christians by any Muslim public. At the same time, 82% of Christians have a positive view of Muslims.

Attitudes toward Jews, however, are quite another matter.

Attitudes toward Jews, however, are quite another matter. Even before the current conflict, negative sentiments about Jews and Israel were widespread in Lebanon, and they were not confined to the Muslim community. Indeed, no one in our Lebanese sample, Muslim, Christian, Druze, or otherwise, said they had a favorable view of Jews.”

The new “caliphate” of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—the Islamic State, formerly “ISIS”—recently made clear that it means to follow in the footsteps of the original caliphate of Abu Bakr al-Sadiq (632-634),

specifically by directing its jihad against fellow Muslims, in Islamic parlance, the “hypocrites” and “apostates,” or in Western terminology, “moderates.”

This came out in the context of the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, with some Muslims asking the newly formed “caliphate” when it would launch a jihad on the Jewish state.

The Islamic State’s response? “Allah in the noble Koran does not command us to fight Israel or the Jews until we fight the apostates and hypocrites.”

This phenomenon of “pious” Muslims fighting and killing “lukewarm” Muslims, or Shia and Sunnis fighting one another—while the original infidel stands by or gets away—has many precedents throughout history

That’s why ISIL is busy right now killing Muslims and taking territory — this is a map showing the territories of the original Caliphate

and as you can see, ISIL’s main sponsor, Saudi Arabia (the USA’s “friend”), is waiting for them to succeed and complete their assignment

the call for Jihad in America or Europe is nothing more than a side note and revenge because America/Europe stuck their nose in ISILs business.

The USA government supported ISIL when they were fighting Bashar al-Assad of Syria (who ISIL considers one of the biggest apostate/hypocrite)

and would not have gotten involved if the American journalists weren’t killed and the media shamed them into getting involved.

I personally think that the US government does not know what the h’ll is going on because it keeps messing up — it Truly does not understand Muslims or the history of Africa/Middle East

George,
i have one other question. do you know how much religious tolerance exists today in most Islamic states that follow Sharia law?”

i’ve been under the impression that in Islamic states there isn’t much of a presence when it comes to other world religions. in the West there is a bit of everything, everyone can practice freely without obstruction. i don’t believe that is the case under Islamic law. but please correct me if i am wrong

^^this was my question to anon word for word. i do not assume all Islamic states practice sharia law. thanks for the response either way.

Linda says,

and this is why I said pick a country– which Islamic State?

Modern “Islamic states” practice Sharia Law differently

Forgive me, but I have yet to see you distinguish or acknowledge the differences

What I am getting out of your comments, is that

by using the term “West”, you are putting many things under one umbrella:

to compare/contrast to “Sharia Law” of Islamic States, which encompasses countries that span from Africa to the Middle East with different forms of governments

and that’s fine, I’m not trying to pick at you

but if you really want to compare apples to apples: Pick a country

I do recognize that your INTENT is to compare one set of beliefs to another set of beliefs (Islam versus Christianity)

Sharia Law exists in different formats based on country to country –depending on the country, Sharia is part of the law or part of it’s judicial system, and it’s Strict adherence is dependent on the country

the same way that the Christian Bible was used to establish the laws of the land in America and Europe but is not Strictly adhered to in the Judicial system of modern countries

not all countries in the “West” represent Christianity nor are their judicial laws based on strict Laws of Christ. (Communism had a knack for removing the laws of Christ off the books)

That was my point

__________________________________________

here, I’ll give you hand:

George to Anon,
i have one other question. do you know how much religious tolerance exists today in an Islamic state, such as Saudi Arabia, compared to a Democratic country like the United States of America?

as you can see, ISIL’s main sponsor, Saudi Arabia (the USA’s “friend”), is waiting for them to succeed and complete their assignment..

ISIL has stated that the governments of both Saudi Arabia and Qatar should be overthrown since they are decadent and unislamic in their eyes. Do you believe these are false statements to draw attention away from the Saudis..?

Words can be used for political purposes—so in order to have this discussion we need to define words/terms so we can analyze what we are talking about….

Previously I explained about the Islamic historical trajectory which informs the world view of Muslims…in the minds of many Muslims “Islam” equates with civilization, law and order….as well as other values such as socio-economic justice, equality, freedom….etc.

“Islamic state”—means one which implements the ethico-moral principles of the Quran in its jurisprudence and its socio-economic policies.

Sharia—was traditionally an oppositional and/or regulatory power to the State. In other words, it acted as a counterbalance to State power.

Today in what is called “Islamic countries”, the Sharia is under State control and law as well as socio-economic policies are made by the privileged elites for the benefit of the privileged elites. Basically, the model is the same as the Western system—its just been re-labeled as “Islamic”.

By “looking back” Muslims want easy solutions to today’s complex problems. Instead, I think Muslims must reflect on the wholistic ethico-moral principles of the Quran and construct societies that will facilitate the implementation of Quranic values for the benefit of all in society. This means re-imagining jurisprudence, governance, and socio-economics in new ways. This would be a long term process with trial and error—but it is better than quick-fix solutions that cause harm.

Religious tolerance—The U.S. does have some problems with tolerance—the Jews have been discriminated against and hate crimes still continue. Muslims and non-Muslim communities mistaken for Muslims have also been targeted for hate crimes. There have been moves against the construction of mosques and hysteria over Sharia. Islamophobia is also high.
In Saudi Arabia, there is a high level of prejudice and intolerance towards non-Arab Muslims and Arab Shia. They are prevented from having their own Mosques.

“Uncle Milton,
ISIL has stated that the governments of both Saudi Arabia and Qatar should be overthrown since they are decadent and unislamic in their eyes. Do you believe these are false statements to draw attention away from the Saudis?

Linda says,

My personal opinion: even bad publicity can be “good”

and the Saudis do care about their image in the western media. (that’s why they arrested the person who recorded the public beheading of a woman, they were mad that it became public)

I’m not so much paying attention to Saudi Arabia’s words, but at their actions.

and I am not convinced of their sincerity just because they have sent fighter jets against ISIS and are building a wall (which was already projected to be build before the formation of ISIS)

Why I think Saudi Arabia is involved:

#1: ISIL boldly states it’s trying to re-create the Caliphate — a Caliphate where one of the biggest countries sitting in it — is Saudi Arabia.

Here’s the map again (hopefully this link will work)

The Saudis and Yemenis are the real and true “Arabs”, and Islam began in that region and spread upwards and out.

I can’t see Saudi Arabia sitting back and being “OK” with this pronouncement from ISIL, (who are Wahhabists, and Wahhabism started in Saudi Arab) if they were Not already involved.

The house of Saud was once linked to Wahhabi clerics, forming the first Wahhabi Saudi state (formed in the 1700s) and the present House of Saud broke up the alliance in the early 1900s using British military help.

The House of Saud’s national security Agenda is to preserve itself. So any imminent invasion from an outside force, like ISIL, would have to be controlled.

So what better way to control a potential threat than by becoming its “friend” and giving it support.

“He (Prince Bandar) does no doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq.

He said: “Such things simply do not happen spontaneously.”

This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.”

“Saudi support for the Syrian opposition is motivated by a decades-long desire to break the alliance between Syria and the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saudi Arabia’s chief rival for dominance in the Persian Gulf and the wider Middle East.

Saudi reaction to the Arab Spring has been two-fold: containing the unrest before it reaches Saudi territory, and ensuring that Iran does not benefit from any changes to the regional balance of power.

But it is notable how the royal family is consciously positioning itself as the protector of Sunnis against what it sees is Iranian interference in Arab affairs. Syria is a majority Sunni country but the security forces are dominated by Alawites, members of a Shiite minority to which Assad’s family belongs”

“The US government & American people didn’t stop Muslims from building a cultural center right where the World Trade Center buildings used to stand in New York City, at ground zero. that’s pretty tolerant if you ask me.”—-They may not have stopped them, but that does not mean they were tolerant. There were large protest to the construction. Furthermore muslims deal with regular discrimination as a result of islamophobic retortic. So this false America tolerance is low.

“Muslims may practice here in the US and they do not face the same risks that Christians face in Islamic nations. admit it, cause it’s the cold hard truth.”—That is a half truth. Certain Islamic nations are calling and have been calling for tolerance for some time. In fact Muslims and Christians gathered during the Christmas holiday as a sign of good faith. So it is more true to say depending on the Islamic nation will depend on if a Christian does or does not face risks. Just as depending on the location in the US will depend on the risk to the Muslim.

@George
Tolerance or Intolerance?—This may be a case of whether the glass is half full or half empty….?…..
As Islamophobia rises in the U.S. and Europe, interfaith co-operation is rising to combat it—for Example, a Cathedral in Germany closed its lights in protest of anti-Muslim marches, the U.S. also has examples of faith communities coming together. In the turmoil of the Middle East Muslims and Christians are helping each other, for example, in Egypt, Muslims protected Churches while the Christians prayed and the Christians in turn protected the Mosques while Muslims prayed…In Iraq, Muslims tried to protect Christians against Daesh and helped many to escape,…in Palestine, Christians and Muslims help each other. (All of this is in the news…with pictures…though you may have to go outside of the Western media to find it……)

…I think,,,at best, what we can say about our world today is that all of us are struggling to find our way….?……

You hit the nail on the head, and if leaders in the US, UK, et al. (and all the war mongering talking heads on Fox News) were serious about fighting al-Qaeda, ISIL, etc. they would’ve supported targeting Saudi Arabia long before Iraq and Afghanistan.

And much of the Islamophobic stereotypes like authoritarianism and mistreatment of and lack of rights for women comes from Saudi Arabia. The world’s largest Islamic country, Indonesia, is a democracy that has already elected a female president. Not even the US can make that claim. I’m sure this is news to Islamophobes like Bobby M.

And what a shame that Obama, Cameron, et al. just went to Saudi Arabia to pay respect to a misogynistic dictator whom they call “prince.” They called Saddam and Gaddafi evil dictators, but Abdullah is somehow a “prince,” treating us like children reading a damned fairy tale.

Western media outlets will likely frame the most recent perpetrator of what some speculate is an anti-Muslim crime in the same way they frame most anti-Muslim criminals – as crazed, misguided bigots who acted alone. If past coverage is any indication, there will likely be very little suggestion that the killer acted on the basis of an ideology or as part of any larger pattern or system.

But what if acts of anti-Muslim violence are consistent with at least some strands of current western ideology? What if Islamophobia has become so commonplace, so accepted, that it now represents a hegemonic system of thought, at least for relatively large pockets of people in some regions of the West?

Maybe I should do a post on how Christians have not condemned the Chapel Hill shooting and, while I am at it, take Bible verses out of context. I can end with how Western imperialism is a worldwide threat, that the fight against it is this generation’s Manichaean showdown.

“The discussions carried out on television news programmes are not surprising given the structural problems associated with western news, and, importantly, the basic imbalance in sourcing. Why, for example, is Hamza Hansen, a top Muslim American public intellectual, not given a regular platform on news networks alongside anti-Islam bigots who have made careers out of dissecting Islamic textual sources they do not appear to be qualified to interpret?”

How Arabs and Muslims are stereotyped by Hollywood (emphasis mine):

“Importantly, western entertainment media portrayals also receive unfavourable scholarly evaluations. In the most comprehensive and systematic study of Hollywood movies done to-date, media scholar Jack Shaheen examined 100 years of Hollywood film representations of Arabs and Muslims.

He found that the majority of the 900 films he examined portrayed Arabs and Muslims as “brutal, heartless, uncivilised religious fanatics and money-mad cultural ‘others’ bent on terrorising civilised westerners, especially Christians and Jews”.“

He is an avowed atheist, but his religious conviction seems to have played no part in his violent massacre. He is still viewed as a lone crazed gunman, and people doubt if it could be charged with a hate crime (as if atheists couldn’t “hate” muslims).

However, if the gunman were a Muslim, then the media would have found a way to make his religious background a factor in any violence he perpetrated.

If anything, Christians should hold a more negative view towards atheists than towards Muslims, but they do not, as least Christians in the West.

Two of the biggest public Islamophobes I know of are atheists: Bill Maher and Sam Harris. They condemn all religion, but do not apply the same out-group prejudice to Christians and Jews that they do to Muslims.

True, but why would you then do a post on how Christians have not condemned the Chapel Hill shooting and then go on to quote Bible verses out of context? Wouldn’t it fit better if you asked why American secularists have not condemned the Chapel Hill shooting, and then quote passages from The Origin Of Species out of context?

Some Islamophobes are paid to spread hate—
The money trail leads to…..

“Some of these foundations and wealthy donors also provide direct funding to anti-Islam grassroots groups. According to our extensive analysis, here are the top seven contributors to promoting Islamophobia in our country:
Donors Capital Fund
Richard Mellon Scaife foundations
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust
Russell Berrie Foundation
Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund
Fairbrook Foundation
Altogether, these seven charitable groups provided $42.6 million to Islamophobia think tanks between 2001 and 2009—funding that supports the scholars and experts that are the subject of our next chapter as well as some of the grassroots groups that are the subject of Chapter 3 of our report.”
From Fear Inc.,https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/report/2011/08/26/10165/fear-inc/

What has been the development on this Chapel Hill shooting in the past few days? Is the US mainstream media still waging a campaign to suggest that it could not be a hate crime? or that it is simply the act of a crazed gunman and not reflective of public sentiment?

I was not aware of it and have just started looking into it after you mentioned it. I view it as a hate crime. So far what I have read is the media is trying to push it off as not a hate crime but an issue over a parking space. A parking space that none of the victims car appear to have been in.

What about the opposite, when Moslems come in and start DEMANDING their hosts change long-standing traditions, like Octoberfest.
Noone asked them to come, Germany, like other suicidally altruistic Civilized World countries, let them in because their own countries are at war, and they didn’t want to stay there–but rather than thank the Germans, they say “What you’re doing is offensive, change your tradition for us!”
Do a quick search for it.

Or more ridiculous, here in America, a Moslem family sued a CHRISTIAN PRIVATE UNIVERSITY to let them in, then sued AGAIN because Christian imagery “disrupts” the Moslem faith!http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/news/2011/10/lawsuit-says-crosses-at-catholic-university-offensive-prevent-muslim-prayers.php
Why go to a private CHRISTIAN University, much less one run by the Holy See (The Pope’s “Corporation”, for all intents and purposes), then complain about Christianity there?
It’s like they’re going out of their way to be offended! But if they’re really offended, wouldn’t they LEAVE the non-Moslem area, or better yet, never invade in the first place?

Succinct and accurate, and this post essentially defines the most insidious threat we face: profound and prolific lack of critical thinking skills and what appears to be a burgeoning anti-intellectualism.

Trump wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US. Even those who are citizens and are, say, serving overseas in the military. He says we have to do it, that we have no choice. The crowd was eating it up. Yet further proof that only he will do what is necessary for the country.

Trump says they would be asked at the border whether they are Muslims.

Why not just deny entry to all self-identified terrorists instead? Wouldn’t that be more efficient? Damn, I’m a genius. If only I’d had a few hundred mil burning a hole in my pocket… I could’ve run for president.

Naturalised immigrants are assigned a race by the US govt. They don’t have a say in the matter. So if you’re black and from Egypt, like Mostafa Hefny, you are told you are White.

Yes, probably so.
But, in subsequent census forms, it is self-reporting. Many people switch their racial identity. Millions might do it, esp. when there is a new definition, but many others just choose to change the way they identify.

If Tiger Woods ticked black, white, Asian, Native American, 2 or more races or some other race, he will not be forced to change his self-reporting.

Some “correction” might be made by the US census bureau, but it is certainly not like what it was during Jim Crow where they forced people to misreport or change their official registered race on US govt documents.

Did I hear Trump correctly when he said that FDR has visionary insight when he issued Presidential Proclamations 2525, 2526, and 2527?

Presidential Proclamation 2525 was directed towards Japanese aliens, but the vast majority affected by the order were native US-born citizens.

We have already spent 70 years discussing how that was wrong and unconstitutional. When a serious presidential candidate says such stuff and cheered by crowds, I am very worried about the US. The problem there is much worse than pundits claim – not just Trump, but the US population.

But should you not fear a religion which causes discord, terror, fear, disharmony etc. wherever it goes? Do you know what Thailand, Phillipines, India, Russia, Australia, France, Myanmar, Indonesia, USA, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria and Spain have in common? All of them have Muslims committing violence in the name of Islam. I know how diverse Muslims are and some of the tension has been created because of US foreign policy and Saudi support of Wahhabism. But still Muslims manage to beat all odds and wreak havoc. They can’t get along in East nor in West, in northern hemisphere or in Southern hemisphere. They hate Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Christian, Buddhist and other Muslim sects. Where is the peace? Is something wrong with all the religions in the world that are not (Sunni) Islam or is something wrong with Islam? Please I beg you give me an explanation.

“It is highlighted that the web pages hosted on your platform are extremely Blasphemous / Hate Speech. The same have also been declared blasphemous under Pakistan Penal Code section 295, 295A, 295B, 295C and is in clear violation of Section 11 and 37 of Prevention of Electronic Crime Act (PECA) 2016 and Section 19 of Constitution of Pakistan.

Keeping above in view, It is requested to please support in removing following URL’s from your platform at earliest please.

“due to the order it is possible that your site could at some point in the future become inaccessible for Internet visitors originating from Pakistan. Visitors from outside of Pakistan would still be able to access the site.”

Any way to confirm if it is for the post or the comments? Offending comments could be “harmonized” without deleting the post.

Did you read the laws to identify which part of the law was broken? If you think it is in error, can it be appealed? Anyhow, I doubt that wordpress will sue in some Pakistan court.

I really dislike crackdowns which are backdated like this. A 2016 law could make anything done before that (like this 2015 post) suddenly illegal today, even though it was legal at the time it was performed.

Still having a post that is deemed by a foreign government to be illegal is one thing. But in the PRC WordPress is banned outright, unless you have a VPN to circumvent what country you are from, and there is even a crackdown on illegal VPNs. Normally, I cannot access any of the posts or even the site if I went to the mainland PRC.

Maybe this incident will help you understand why people in HK are so up in arms with the proposed fugitive extradition law. Imagine if something you wrote 10-15 years ago was suddenly deemed “illegal”. Then you could be designated a fugitive (even if you are overseas). If you happened to change planes in HK airport at some future date, they would have the right and the mechanism to arrest you and whisk you to detention in the mainland.

And they have no intention to damage their 99.9% conviction rate, which they often do via forced confessions.

It is not only people who put up a blog post which at some future date could be deemed to be illegal. Foreign businesses and persons who have ever gone to China to make business agreements for their supply chain or for mergers or for joint ventures have undoubtedly done some arrangement which may have technically been illegal at the time, or at any date in the future be backdated to have been illegal. They could be at risk for risk and detention or super high fines, even if they are traveling to HK and not to the mainland.

It is not like the PRC has been doing this already. For example, they abducted foreign (British and Swedish) citizens in HK and Thailand and whisked them to mainland China to make forced confessions in the Causeway Bay bookseller case. Those were illegal abductions, but that never stopped them. If the proposed law is passed, it will be legal and more routine to do that.

I wonder if Pakistan has an army of censors to police online content like the PRC does. I wonder how many countries are doing this.